It is not that by merely mentioning the word science, any process can be regarded as scientific. If you will create a theory on literature and that theory is presented scientifically, you have written a scientific dissertation on literature. That is already done by Alankarashastra. Likewise all other shaastras are pure sciences. For example Darshana is science of spirituality, Mimaamsaa is science of performance of sacrifices , Nyaya is science of argument and the like. Of course Ayurveda, the science of lifespan of human beings, Jyautisha, the science of celestial objects are totally get synchronized with modern concept of science.
Now the question is what is exact difference between the science exhibitions (where history of science does have its fair place) and the science-preferred-Sanskrit(?)-conference? Paper presentation is not the correct answer. Sometimes, paper presentations and demonstrations are there even in the Science exhibitions. Public-awareness programmes are usual parts of these .
People are very curious to know our past regarding Science, don’t they? But the big question is, so what? There are plenty of forums in the internet for quenching their thirst.
People are equally interested in understanding beauty of our language, don’t they? Why you are ignoring this fact?
The art of rapid verse-creating in Sanskrit is not died out as seen in the Avadhaana programmes of Dr. R.Ganesh. Try to attract the people towards this real representation of Sanskrit.
As much as possible avoid to waste precious time in answering the queries of Tom, Dick and Harry(This is very common sight in English-painted- Sanskrit(?)-seminars.). Trying to introduce the Sanskrit itself, not showing sycophancy towards Sanskrit (obviously, in English), having knowledge of modern Sanskrit writers and introducing them to public these are very essential points. Are the organizers hearing?
Most ignored field of Sanskrit is of Magazines and periodicals. It is doubtful whether the journalism in its strict sense was and is existing in Sanskrit. The editorials of the magazines like Vijnaanachintaamani, Samskritachandrika, Vidyodaya were not of inferior quality. The first one was using Sanskrit in its pristine purity. Discussions with subtle arguments regarding certain words seen in this magazine are worth mention.
Once, a scholar from Mysore, Kasturi Rangachar started discussion on the word Ojishtha. According to the learned scholar, the form Ojishtha is correct and grammatically acceptable But the form Ojasishtha can not enjoy grammarians’ approval. Kasturi Rangachar’s article was published in Samskritachandrika. One notability of the diction of Kasturi Rangachar’s article is, it was in verse! After its publication, a heated discussion was started. A scholar from Tanjaavuuru wrote very elaborate article on the subject in Vijnaanachintamani, refuting Kasturi Rangacharya’s stand! Can’t one see scientific justifications and counter justifications in these arguments?
Can’t the organizers give opportunity of even one session for the role the Sanskrit magazines had in scientifically retaining Sanskrit as living pulse beat?
Scientific study of any walk of life BELONGS TO SCIENCE and not only Zoology and Botany. Shastras are pure science. There is a Kerala-Shaastra-Parishat in Kerala. Here shaastra means science. So, don’t hesitate to call Vyakarana a science. Don’t be ashamed to call Mimamsaa a science.
It is not that I have hatred towards Astronomical and Mathematical works like Siddhantashiromani and Aryabhatiiya. Neither I hate Ayurvedic works like Ashtangahridaya and Charakasamhita.
In popularizing works like these the organizers of Sanskrit-world-conference have to have clear mental picture about how their effort is different from of toil of the organizers of exhibitions on history of Indian science.
Tags: celestial objects, darshana, dissertation on literature, history of science, paper presentation, paper presentations, Sanskrit, science exhibitions, science of spirituality, word science